aera2014: instructional design in action: observing the judgments of id practitioners
DESCRIPTION
Authors: Elizabeth Boling, Colin M. Gray, and Verily Tan Abstract: In this study, we address the relative lack of rigorous research on instructional design (ID) practice via an exploratory study in which eight practicing IDs in two consulting environments were observed by pairs of researchers as they went about their normal work activities. In our initial analysis, we sought to discover the kinds of judgments these designers made, characterizing practice on its own terms, rather than through superimposition of existing ID models or frameworks. The Nelson & Stolterman (2012) framework of design judgments, a non-prescriptive, philosophical framework, was used as the lens for this study.TRANSCRIPT
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN ACTION: observing the judgments of ID practitioners elizabeth boling, colin m. gray, and verily tan
collaborators
- Cesur Dagli
- Muruvvet Demiral-‐Uzan
- Funda Ergulec
- Abdullah Altuwaijri
- Khendum Gyabak
- Megan Hilligoss
- Remzi Kizilboga
- Kei Tomita
background, purpose, & previous studies
- Views on design have been shifting in instructional design - From prescriptive enactment of theory to disciplined practice
(Bichelmeyer, Boling and Gibbons, 2006; Smith & Boling, 2009)
- From practice defined by research to practice as definitive of design (Gibbons, Boling, & Smith, 2014; Schwier, Campbell, & Kenny, 2007)
- Research on ID practice has been limited - On its own terms (Rowland, 1992)
- Comparing practice to existing ID models or frameworks (e.g., ADDIE) (Wedman & Tessmer, 1993; Visscher-‐Voerman and Gustafson, 2004)
- Attempts to approach the complexity of practice by translating it into explicit, teachable terms (Ertmer, York, & Gedik, 2009; Ertmer et al., 2009)
design practice & judgment
- Moving beyond a scientific or scientised framing of design practice (Cross, 2011; Stolterman, 2008)
- Reframing our understanding of practical knowledge (phronesis) as specialized knowledge, not just common sense that accompanies scientific action (Dunne, 1997)
- Related constructs: - Tacit knowledge (Holt, 1997; Polanyi, 1966; Vickers, 1984) - Conceptual design sense and critical flexibility (Yanchar
& Gabbitas, 2011)
- Design character and judgment (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012; Korkmaz & Boling, 2014)
Type Operationalized Definition
framing Creating a working area for design activities to occur, often by introducing constraints (client or tool) or ways of assessing outcomes. This occurs dynamically across multiple levels.
deliberated off-‐hand Recalling to consciousness previous judgments that have led to successful practices and opening them to the possibility of adaptation or use.
appreciative Placing high value and emphases on certain aspect/s of a design situation while backgrounding others.
quality Making design decisions about the effectiveness of visual and other forms of style, or to demonstrate due diligence, often in accordance with company standards, in relation to a concrete design artifact.
appearance Assessment of overall quality, relating to an entire product or experience, rather than just a portion. This often includes part/whole relations within a frame of aesthetic experience or measurement against heuristic(s).
connective Making connections, or bridging various design objects that are central to the design process and activity. The connections made in this context are not generalized but specific to the design situation.
design judgment types
Type Operationalized Definition
compositional Making connections or bringing various design objects together that are central to the design process and activity. The connections made in this context are generalized and not specific to a particular design situation but to the overall process.
instrumental The selecting, utilization, or influence of a tool, concept, or method in reaching an established design goal.
navigational Considering a path, plan, or certain manner (of individual, disciplined preference) in approaching a task or a challenge to get to a desired state.
default Giving an automatic response to a situation without deliberation.
core Statement about one’s value or thinking, usually revealed when pushed by “why” questions concerning one’s judgment.
design judgment types
research questions
- What do IDs do in practice consistent with design judgment?
- What design judgments take place in ID activities?
method
- Two sites of ID practice
- 8 practicing IDs
- Data Collection - Field observations (20 hours total) with handwritten fieldnotes
- Follow-‐up interviews with notes and audio recording
- Analysis - Unitized coding of judgments - Holistic case summaries
findings & discussion
!!
Fram
ing!
Off*han
d!
App
reciative!
Qua
lity!
App
earanc
e!
Conn
ectiv
e!
Compo
sitio
nal!
Instru
men
tal!
Nav
igationa
l!
Defau
lt!
Core!
TOTAL!
Gabriel! 9! 8! 10! 4! 5! 4! 2! 8! 5! 0! 1! 56!
Emily! 5! 6! 8! 2! 0! 3! 4! 8! 6! 10! 0! 52!
Julia! 0! 4! 3! 5! 4! 2! 4! 2! 2! 4! 0! 30!
Heather! 5! 1! 7! 0! 0! 0! 0! 0! 3! 0! 0! 16!
Ethan! 6! 0! 3! 1! 1! 0! 0! 1! 5! 2! 1! 20!
Ethan! 3! 0! 2! 1! 1! 1! 0! 1! 3! 0! 0! 12!
Claire! 3! 3! 6! 3! 1! 2! 3! 2! 3! 0! 0! 31!
Adam! 3! 3! 0! 1! 1! 1! 2! 1! 1! 0! 0! 13!
Sally! 13! 4! 4! 8! 14! 7! 5! 13! 8! 15! 1! 92!
TOTAL! 47! 29! 43! 25! 27! 20! 20! 36! 36! 31! 3! 322!!
Frequency of Judgments based on Nelson and Stolterman (2012) Types
judgments are happening all the time - Average of 35 design judgments per observation
- Over 16 judgments per hour, averaged across all participants
judgments create and are shaped by situational factors in design - Design environment/office culture
- Role or position of the designer
- Project, client, and external factors
judgments are clustered and layered
- Multiple design judgment types are clustered and layered “in the wild”
- Stolterman: “[judgments] as pearls and they are connected with strings…If you take one and hold it up, then the others just hang, as a cluster…”
- Pure philosophical types versus complex, contextually-‐bound expressions in reality
Name Company Role Years of
Experience Background
Gabriel Campus-‐wide Consultancy Media Consultant 6
Degree in Computer Science; Masters in Comm. & Tech.
Emily Established ID Firm ID 0.17 ID in non-‐profit fields
Julia Established ID Firm Senior ID/Project Leader 7
Degree in Fine Arts;
Masters in IST
Heather Established ID Firm Project Manager 11
Degree in English;
Masters in IST
Ethan Established ID Firm ID 2.5
Degree in IT;
Masters in Instructional Tech.
Claire Established ID Firm ID 6.5
Degree in Ed. Counseling;
Masters in EdTech
Adam Established ID Firm Course Director 10
Degree in Journalism;
EdS in IST
Sally Established ID Firm ID 3 Masters in Screenwriting
example
She started the meeting [with a client via teleconferencing] with questions. She needs clarification on the document to understand the content better and said she wanted to ask questions to the person who created high level outline. [...] She continued making clarification on the understanding of the content and she asked “what communication skills and active listening skills mean. She wanted to sure whether what she understood is same what they mean with these terms. Then, she stated that she would like to have the definition of “active listening skills. (Claire, 123-‐124; 164-‐166)
limitations
- Data limited to one ID at a time, although others appear in the frame
- No continuity across projects or project teams - Convenient sample, with most IDs originally educated in a single ID program
- Over-‐explanation of practice in some instances - Operationalization of a philosophical model of judgment is incomplete
implications & future research
- Judgments are made on a continuous basis throughout projects, and not just as mental “adjustments” to models; these judgments cannot be discovered through the application of a priori scientific models
- Move toward understanding practice on its own terms, using this as a base for scholarship that can then improve practice
——————————— - We know almost nothing about this space - Knowledge of professional practice is highly important for ID education, including engagement in authentic situations
references Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., & Gibbons, A. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: Their impact on research, practice and
teaching in IDT. In M. Orey, J. McLendon & R. Branch (Eds.). Educational Media and Technology Yearbook 2006. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. New York, NY: Berg. Dunne, J. (1997). Back to the rough ground: Practical judgment and the lure of technique. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
Press. Ertmer, P. A., York, C. S., & Gedik, N. (2009). Learning from the pros: How experienced designers translate instructional design models
into practice. Educational Technology, 49(1), 19-‐27. Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., Flanagan, S., Kocaman-‐Karoglu, A., Reiner, C., Reyes, L., ... & Ushigusa, S. (2009). Impact of guidance on the
problem-‐solving efforts of instructional design novices. Performance Improvement Quarterly,21(4), 117-‐132. Holt, J. E. (1997). The designer's judgement. Design Studies, 18(1), 113-‐123. Korkmaz, N., & Boling, E. (2014). Development of design judgment in instructional design: Perspectives from instructors, students, and
instructional designers. In Design in educational technology (pp. 161-‐184). Switzerland: Springer. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 5(2), 65-‐86. Gibbons, A. S., Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2014). Instructional design models. In Handbook of research on educational communications
and technology (pp. 607-‐615). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-‐1-‐4614-‐3185-‐5_48 Schwier, R. A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R. F. (2007). Instructional designers' perceptions of their agency: Tales of change and community.
In M. J. Keppell (Ed.), Instructional design: Case studies in communities of practice (pp. 1-‐18). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What Do We Make of Design? Design as a Concept in Educational Technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3-‐17.
Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 55-‐65.
Vickers, S. G. (1984). Judgment. In The Vickers papers (pp. 230-‐245). London, UK: Harper & Row. Visscher-‐Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69-‐89. Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 59(3), 383-‐398. doi:10.1007/s11423-‐010-‐9180-‐3 Wedman, J. and Tessmer, M. (1993), Instructional Designers Decisions and Priorities: A Survey of Design Practice. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 6(2): 43–57.